If there is one thing NBA Commissioner David Stern has been tasked with doing in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations, it is cut costs. Despite record high revenues, many teams in the league claim an inability to continue with the current system. Stern claims that the Association needs to reduce player salaries by 1/3rd for the league to become profitable.

The nuclear solution being tossed out by the owners is simple: a hard salary cap similar to what the NFL employs.

For many reasons, the Players Union will fight to the death (also known as, “decertification”) to prevent this from happening. Under the system that is now in place, the NBA has a salary cap framework that really is easy to circumvent for teams that desire to spend more. To illustrate that point, all but six teams (including the Thunder who are exactly at the threshold) currently surpass the imposed salary cap limit. Putting it into solid numbers, the NBA teams are collectively paying members of the union $287.4 million more than would be allowed if the cap were restrictive. Make that salary cap a valid barrier, instead of a line in the sand, and the league is about half way to cutting the costs they desire.

With the Union’s role being to increase their member’s share of the pot, one can understand why this is unacceptable to them. Their first, and strongest, argument is simply that it is not the NBPA’s objective or best interest to save the owners from themselves. While Stern and his staff toss out figures showing financial data rigged to look like massive losses, the players simply have to say they do not care. If owners are truly offering contracts that they cannot afford, it should not be the players to say, “You’re paying us too much,” it should be team management making that call and reacting appropriately.

The Hornets may not have an owner, but they still have blank checks.

Instead, the owners have acted in complete opposition to their stance. Even the New Orleans Hornets, who certainly are struggling financially and whose ownership was absorbed by the other 29 teams, are taking on salary to make a playoff push. This past Summer, with a global recession at an apex and the NBA big wigs forecasting massive losses, the league raised the salary cap. Then, in free agency, the team’s holding Bird Rights to second tier stars like Joe Johnson were offering the maximum contracts allowed fully aware that if they did not, other teams would be happy to outbid them.

Putting it into solid numbers, the NBA teams are collectively paying members of the union $287.4 million more than would be allowed if the cap were restrictive.

The official stance by the owners will insist this is exactly why a hard cap is necessary. Due to the highly competitive nature of the game, teams feel the necessity of making decisions that are not based on the bottom line. They would rather lose money than games.

Is that really a bad thing? If one believes the dire statements of league management, sure. However, the NBA is not General Motors arguing with the Union of Auto Workers that they cannot be competitive. Professional basketball in this country is a monopoly, the revenues are growing exponentially, and even if both of those things were not true, most of the owners in the league certainly are not running these teams with the intent of becoming rich on the profits the sport brings.

As such, the idea of a hard cap is merely a bluff. If the team owners really believed that they needed to spend less, 80% of the league would not be taking advantage of the soft cap’s loopholes so eagerly. The hard cap would be far too restrictive and the league would become stagnant. A team that felt it was “one player” from becoming a championship contender (something that describes all but the most hopeless franchises) would be unable to make anything happen. Plus, the dirty little secret of the NBA is that a good deal of the interest in the league is player movement. The trade deadline, free agency period, and draft make up more of the discussion about the league than what actually happens on the floor. Add in that transitioning from a soft to hard cap would be a logistical nightmare without the elimination of guaranteed contracts (a non-starter in discussions with the union), and it does not take a Sam Presti-level genius to figure out that this is not happening.

Regardless of what the changes are to the CBA, it's a safe bet that this guy will keep playing chess while every other GM plays checkers.

But what if it did? Theoretically, it should help the Oklahoma City Thunder. The idea of a hard cap is supposed to create parity and allow small market teams (of which OKC is the smallest) to compete fiscally with teams located in the major metropolises. With Thunder management already thriving at building a team while behaving as if the salary cap threshold were solid, one would think that Sam Presti would continue making smart decision that continued to make the team here great.

On the other hand, it could be a massive setback. The Thunder have been able to make those highly praised roster moves because they have been one of the few teams that had the salary cap flexibility. When all thirty teams are forced to be a conscious, the competitive advantage is gone. Plus, a lot of the maneuverings have been with long term knowledge that eventually, those loopholes to surpass the cap would be necessary to keep the nucleus of the team together. If the team locks up Russell Westbrook to a large extension, already has Kevin Durant and Kendrick Perkins taking up a big chunk of the rest, and then cannot surpass the threshold to re-sign Serge Ibaka and James Harden, suddenly the benefits of a hard cap are outweighed by the costs.

In addition, it would cripple the team’s chances in free agency. When all teams are limited to being able to offer the same amount, the fringe benefits are more valued by the players. Already, being in the spot light of a place like New York appeals to players who become celebrities as a result of their association with the Association. Choosing to take a lower key approach and focus simply on basketball in a small market like Oklahoma City has to either come from a rare personality trait (which the Thunder have been very lucky to find, thus far) or supplemented with extra money (typically a player’s highest priority). A hard cap, quite simply, de-levels the playing field for the small markets in that regard.

Boston did get rid of Wally's contract in that Allen deal and that made it quite easy to say yes too. (And got West back later and now Green too.)

I mentioned starter upgrades- that could be trading one for another or adding an upgrade and bumping somebody down. Nobody has been bumped down and stayed... yet. It has been lock in a role or eventually move out.

You said: "... rarely is the championship not hoisted by a team that made the best moves given their opportunity."

I agree with that. Boston had Jefferson but got / has given Garnett. Boston paid for a full priced Ray Allen. The Lakers got Gasol, paid Bynum, kept Odom, got Artest.

The Thunder made the change at center but if the Thunder have an opportunity in the future to upgrade at starting PF or SG or C or PG from what they have now will they do it? How much will they do or spend to upgrade the bench further? Time will tell on need or desirability of doing so and willingness to do so.

@CrowMoney and market size are part of the hand each front office is dealt. Perhaps not many teams could have afforded to take on Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett in the same year. But Boston could, and did. They made the best moves, and thus they won. LA took on and extended Pau's huge contract, leading to back to back titles. Yes, also a factor of being a big market, but mostly smart decision making. How many teams, looking back now, would have made those same plunges if it would have meant a championship, regardless of market size?

Yes, luck is always a factor, but rarely is the championship not hoisted by a team that made the best moves given their opportunity.

@Thunder BeardThis is a very silly populist argument. If you add up the values of all the teams the NBA is worth 15 billion dollars. Compare what Stern makes with what the CEO's of other 15 billion dollar companies make (considering options and salaries). He's underpaid.

Does the CEO of Devon Energy "play his butt" off? Of course not, but that doesn't mean he deserves a high salary for running a very large, very profitable business.

@DXLBecause he isn't out there playing his butt off. he's sitting in on meetings trying to figure out how to make millionaires into billionaires while sipping overpriced coffee. his annual pay should be lower than the players. he doesn't do anything except put a suit on and act superior to you and I.

@osano-whoaYeah, they are all really funny. Pretty witty, coming up with funny answers off the top of their heads. And I agree about Perk-- loved his comment about "If you ain't rolling with the blue and orange, I can't roll witcha" or whatever it was.

@osano-whoaAwesome! I saw you-- glasses and a Thunder U shirt. Russ definitely got a kick out of you asking "Why not?". Very cool. And Serge was so funny with the whole "I can sing!" and doing the Norman Ooooohhhh thing. I spent all my time at the Q&A too. That was a really cool deal. Loved all their answers. And you could tell they appreciated the love. KD is so good with people. And Perk carrying his son around was pretty stinkin' cute.

I constructed quick salary totals in current dollars ("inflated" by 5% a year, I think is would be that or more in the NBA) of championship team spending on their top 3 players for the last 11 years. The current value average was $48 million. 9 of 11 were over $40 million. 7 of 11 over $50 million. The highest was $62 million (07-08 Celtics desperate for a title again.). The lowest was $24 million (03-04 Pistons).

That is spending on just the top 3 players.

The Thunder currently spend about $26 million on its top 3 salaries and it will stay that way next season. If Westbrook gets a near max early extension the salary of the top 3 will still be under $40 million.

Money is a way to buy top talent and it is top talent that wins but will $26-40 million buy enough top talent to will a title in the next 3 tries? Mid 20s has been enough once, Low 40s or less has won 4 of 11 (including the Spurs twice.) This season only the Lakers are over low 40s at $56 million. A handful are in the low 40s.

I did the Q&A sessions all night at the season ticket member event. Got to ask Russel Westbrook "Why Not?" which he seemed to enjoy. I asked Serge Ibaka whether he was going to be in the dunk contest again and he actually seemed really excited to do it again. Also asked Collison whether he was every going to break out the absolute value mustache, and he seemed amused.

Fun night. Really enjoyed seeing the guys interact. Serge is hilarious and has an amazing presence in person.

No one is talking about whether existing salaries would be cut. That's the only way I could see a hard cap working. Set a lower maximum, and adjust salaries accordingly. Seems pretty unlikely, though. But how can you have a hard cap at a level where every team is already over?

@cdub00yes they want salaries cut by a third, but they cant just make a hard cap 33% lower, every team would be over, and that would put the cap at 38 million, durant would eat up 50% of our cap space, miami wouldnt be able to afford the big 3, nor boston keep its top 4, or lakers. They have to structure a hard cap so that teams can keep their existing players, or the owners will never agree to it, so it has to be somewhat high. The hard cap by itself isnt going to lower salaries it will just stop the bloat way above the cap from the big markets so small markets dont have to be as afraid of losing their stars and overpaying them.

The CBA negotiations have so many variables. Not sure how much the league will win back but it would seem they might care more about the amount of the win back than all the details of where the savings are achieved though individual teams will care more about one thing than another if it helps or hurts them competitively short-term or long-term. Time before last (the last lockout) Stern "won" on setting up a lot of mechanisms- and that seemed to be his focus- but he lost on the bottom-line. Unexpectedly I guess. Kind of surprising given their years of planning. Guess they didn't know exactly and perfectly what they were doing. It happens even to experts.

I don't think ur right. The League wants to cut salraies by A THIRD. That would effectively put the hard cap BELOW where the soft cap currently is. Its a null point though cuz it ain't never gonna happen.

@gr8ball83no line by the time i got there, but no not really, there were some things for adults but it was kid oriented, there were some talk to the players things but anything with players was really crowded, i was about 2 feet from serge, 5 ft from perkins and saw russ, ivey, and nick as well. serge is really tall, and perk is wide. The thunger girls are really hot up close as well,lol.

@f5alconWe saw the enormous line outside and left. We couldn't figure out what we would do there since we don't have kids and there are no autographs. figured the players would play with the kids, take pictures with them, and we would just stand around. Did I miss anything?

@f5alconOh really, David Stern does nothing? What about globalizing the popularity of the NBA? Signing TV deals in 215 countries? Overseeing the building of 28 new arenas? Managing the introduction of 7 new NBA franchises and the re-location of 5 NBA franchises?

There's a lot more to the business of basketball than getting 10 guys and a couple of referees on a court. Get realistic!

@StephenIt's not what any one teams decides is prudent, it's what the rest of the league decides each of those players is worth. If the question is big three or role players, I'd pick the big 3, hands down.

As for how a hard cap and no salary max affects everyone, think of this: who is paying Chris Bosh that money? It's not only going to be NY. Once things get rolling, everyone is stuck with an enormous contract or else stuck without a star (because that huge contract becomes the new going rate for stars). We can't play it both ways, where one team makes smart decisions and gets KD for 15 million, and another pays Chris Bosh 40 million. Even KD, the nicest star in the NBA, isn't going to accept Bosh (a lesser player) making 25 million more PER YEAR.

Now, everyone is saddled with a humongous contract (contracts always go up so long as the system allows it, just look at the contracts second and third tier MLB stars got this offseason). So, no one has the money to play multiple stars, every star makes a ridiculous % of the total cap, and every non-star is making pennies by comparison. This is what I mean by the death of the non-stars. The hard cap plus huge contracts means every non-star gets shafted. Say what you will, but it is always more effective to have a star than to have none. So the pittance players come out and get to decide where to play for their miniscule contracts. Where are they going to play? The small market team with no beaches, or the large market team where they can always supplement their contract with sponsorship and the night life?

Big market teams are always going to have an advantage, because when all other things are equal, the big market will still be the bigger draw. Further, the big market teams will always make more money than the small market teams overall. If a big market team sinks more than is wise into a player, even if it causes them to lose, it hurts, but they will be making money regardless. If a small market team sinks too much money into a player, and they don't win, they don't have the total revenue to deal with the financial losses.

There are more things going on than just how much money the CBA says you can spend. The CBA can never equalize how much money teams are worth individually.

How would no maximum salary with a hard cap of $60 million pander to large market teams? How could they afford to make costly mistakes more so than a small market team when the hard cap number is the same for all teams? If the Knicks offer Chris Bosh a stupid contract, they're stuck with it and have to build the team around that contract. If you're suggesting they could just buy out problem contracts and try again, that's an incredibly easy fix. Just have the contract count against the cap regardless going forward.

Also, it wouldn't necessarily be the death of non-star salaries. The teams would be allowed to construct a team however they wish. If Miami thinks it can win with the big 3 plus 9 minimum salary players, great. Do you think the Spurs would go that route? Or the Thunder? Removing a maximum salary when there's a hard cap in place would more accurately represent what a player is worth to a franchise. It would allow teams in bad locations to compete with the Miamis and LAs of the world with dollars. The Heat are example enough of you can't just go out, get three great players, fill out the roster with junk, and be given the title of NBA's best team.

@f5alconThat's what I don't understand. The owners still have all the power if they cared. The fact that Stern is able to be such a bully and tyrant seems to fly in the face of who is actually signing the checks. The only thing I can think of is that NBA owners, as a whole, care less than owners in other sports. How else to explain their giving so much power over their business to someone else.

Over the table. Under the table, I wouldn't be surprised if Stern collects a bundle. I don't think I'm going out on a limb thinking that Stern is the most powerful and corrupt of any of the league's commissioners.

@DXLTo be fair, Stern hasn't exactly done a great job. His league has been losing fans for over a decade, the product is widely considered the least well officiated of any major sport, and he's probably going to have been on hand for two lockouts that lasted into the season. And of course he's a jerk, but I suppose that doesn't have much business relation.

@Sun_Tzu76I think you are overlooking a huge factor here: guaranteed contracts. NFL players are much more willing to play on year to year (though we see holdouts there all the time) basis because their contracts aren't guaranteed. NBA players are guaranteed through the duration of their contract, so playing year to year means any slip or injury can completely derail their long term finances.

Further, I don't believe your premise actually represents the league's best interests. The NBA's total revenue is inordinately boosted by it's biggest markets and best teams. Perennial losers generally detract from the league's value. Stars bring fans, true, but the NBA does not produce such a dominating product that a star alone will bring out profit in every franchise. The Kings have two bright young stars, but are halfway to moving out of Sacramento. Atlanta and New Orleans can't turn a profit with their stars and wins. The league wants to profit off stars, but those stars languishing in mediocrity and obscurity doesn't turn a profit.

Also, like Clark Matthews pointed out, much of the league's marketing and exposure comes from player movement. Institute a franchise tag, and it would remove the top player from every team every year in free agency. Further, without teams needing to worry about keeping their star, they would have far fewer qualms dumping a star's friends or secondary players that help the team win. The current CBA already has every first round draft pick locked in for 5 years below their market value (and for those who are actual stars, it's generally 7-8 years). If a team can't convince a team to stay after 7-8 years, the player shouldn't be forced to stay, and the league probably makes more money if that player was elsewhere.

@StephenRaising maximum salaries that high is unrealistic. Not to mention, it actually panders to big markets, who can afford more costly mistakes. No one in the NBA, besides perhaps Chris Bosh, wants to see Chris making 90% of anyone's salary cap. It would be the death of non-star salaries league-wide.

Cap or no cap, parity is going to be determined by the people in charge. The best front office always wins.

A hard cap could work to help level the playing field and prevent another big 3 type scenario if the max individual salary was lifted. Say the max salary is raised to the hard cap number minus 11 minimum salaries... the dollars available to a team way under the cap would have probably been enough to sway someone like Chris Bosh. Sure they were all willing to take less to play together. But that's because the difference between a max contract and the amount they actually got was negligible. If the Heat could offer the big 3 20mm/per, but the Knicks could have offered Bosh 40mm/per, do you think Bosh would have ended up in Miami? Maybe, but maybe not. If a team would be stupid enough to offer Bosh 60% of its available payroll, let them do it and let them deal with the consequences.

Even with a hard cap, teams like OKC would still be able to compete by virtue of a superior front office. I'm not really a fan of salary caps, but a hard cap doesn't necessarily de-level the playing field. If instituting a hard cap is in play, I don't see why we have to assume all the other rules would still be in place (like the established max contract rules).

@f5alconAgain, that's the same argument made before the NFL's franchise tag. Sometimes there is the odd player that refuses to report to the team because of the tag. However, that is very very rare. They may be unhappy, but they almost always play and play hard. Otherwise that behavior/attitude just devalues their next contract.

@KeithBut that's what I said, if players are willing to take less, that is hard to stop. However, a hard cap helps since the less you can pay, the less likely the player is to go there. However, I really disagree about taking off the table something like the NFL's franchise tag. Who is going to make the judgment about being in a bad situation? Sometimes a player may think a "bad" situation is just playing in OKC/NO/Milwaukee, etc. Why should the fans be punished for that? A star is so rare, it is a horrible shame that a fan base must be punished due to the whims of a player. I guess I just lie on the side that the league overall and the fans would be better served by taking away some of the ability of a player to force his way out of a team like we have seen so often recently. It isn't good for the league or for the fans.

One thing they could do, to try to get a compromise and play, would be to move the owner rebate from the player salary escrow from 100% based on total salary spending to average profitability or a combination of the two.

I assume the league will eventually be forced to negotiate the terms of team revenue-sharing with the players as part of an overall solution despite their attempt to refuse to do so and hold that as a later issue for owners only to settle.

If owners want more money now, they could also force Stern to turn more league level revenues back to them immediately instead of holding the assets at league level I'm not sure how much he is holding but I think it is non-trivial. They could ask the very top NBA execs to cut a pay cut too. It all adds up.

@Sun_Tzu76You can't prevent what Miami did, even if there is a hard cap. All the players involved took less than they could have gotten elsewhere. No amount of CBA-ing can stop players from taking less money to play somewhere. Players want to play for good teams, and getting good players is the quickest way to getting a good team.

Not to mention, the goal of "helping all teams to get a chance to compete" should not be confused with "keeping good players from leaving bad situations." Chris Paul wouldn't care about NY if New Orleans wasn't so bad at building a team around him. Same with Lebron and Bosh. Duncan never left San Antonio for that reason. Garnett was ready to go down with the ship in Minnesota.

I don't see how a hard cap keeps players from trying to get on the same team, but I completely disagree with the idea that any CBA should go into place that forces players to stay in a bad situation without a way out.

@Clark MatthewsBut isn't that the point then? With a hard cap, you get a situation where it is less likely this happens again (i.e. the potential NY scenario with CP3, Amare and Anthony). A hard cap helps in preventing the marquee players from leaving small markets for large ones--even more so if they institute some sort of franchise tag like the NFL. The goal should be to help all teams to get a chance to compete, not just the ones with the most money. That is the best way to grow the league and league interest and consequently league overall revenue. Grow overall league interest and the money rises for everyone--that whole rising tide lifts all boats thing. You will still get good teams and bad due to team management, but the playing field would be more level for all and thus gives greater opportunity and fan interest for all.

Miami is hardly the big market one would ordinarily worry about. They have fringe benefits of weather and girls in bikinis, but if they didn't have the super friends, they wouldn't be any more appealing to a player wanting fortune and fame than Orlando.

The Heat's situation is not one to get worked up over and try to re-write the CBA to prevent. It was an incredibly unique situation that required the Heat to put themselves in a position of succeeding or dying. Seriously, if Bosh and James had chosen to go elsewhere, there is no way Wade goes back, and then the team is composed of Joel Anthony and Mario Chalmers trying to recruit a team to surround them.